Ideological congruence is an important and popular measure of the quality of political representation. The closer the match between the preferences of the public and those of elected elites, the better representative democracy is thought to function. Relatively little attention has been paid, however, to the effects of ideological congruence on political judgment. We address this gap by examining whether citizens use egocentric or sociotropic judgments of congruence to evaluate democratic performance. Using a variety of congruence measures, we find that citizens are unmoved by sociotropic congruence; however, our analyses provide clear evidence that egocentric congruence boosts citizen satisfaction, especially among political sophisticates. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for the study of ideological congruence and political representation.
AartsK.ThomassenJ. (2008). Satisfaction with democracy: Do institutions matter?Electoral Studies, 27, 5-18.
2.
AchenC. H. (1978). Measuring representation. American Journal of Political Science, 22, 475-510.
3.
AndersonC. J.BlaisA.BowlerS.DonovanT.ListhaugO. (2005). Losers’ consent: Elections and democratic legitimacy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
4.
AndersonC. J.GuilloryC. A. (1997). Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: A cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. The American Political Science Review, 91, 66-81.
5.
AndersonC. J.LoTempioA. J. (2002). Winning, losing and political trust in America. British Journal of Political Science, 32, 335-351.
6.
AndersonC. J.MendesS. M. (2006). Learning to lose: Election outcomes, democratic experience and political protest potential. British Journal of Political Science, 36, 91-111.
7.
AndersonC. J.TverdovaY. V. (2003). Corruption, political allegiances, and attitudes toward government in contemporary democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 91-109.
8.
AndewegR. (2011). Approaching perfect policy congruence: Measurement, development, and relevance for political representation. In RosemaM.DentersB.AartsK. (Eds.), How democracy works: Political representation and policy congruence in modern societies (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
9.
AtkesonL. R.CarrilloN. (2007). More is better: The influence of collective female descriptive representation on external efficacy. Politics & Gender, 3, 79-101.
10.
BanducciS. A.KarpJ. A. (2003). How elections change the way citizens view the political system: Campaigns, media effects and electoral outcomes in comparative perspective. British Journal of Political Science, 33, 443-467.
11.
BlaisA.BodetM. A. (2006). Does proportional representation foster closer congruence between citizens and policy makers?Comparative Political Studies, 39, 1243-1262.
12.
BlaisA.GélineauF. (2007). Winning, losing and satisfaction with democracy. Political Studies, 55, 425-441.
13.
BoboL.LicariF. C. (1989). Education and political tolerance: Testing the effects of cognitive sophistication and target group affect. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53, 285-308.
14.
BrandenburgH.JohnsR. (2014). The declining representativeness of the British party system, and why it matters. Political Studies, 62, 704-725.
15.
ChangE.ChuY.WuW. (2014). Consenting to lose or expecting to win? Inter-temporal changes in voters’ winner-loser status and satisfaction with democracy. In ThomassenJ. J. A. (Ed.), Elections and democracy: Representation and accountability (pp. 232-254). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
16.
CuriniL.JouW.MemoliV. (2012). Satisfaction with democracy and the winner/loser debate: The role of policy preferences and past experience. British Journal of Political Science, 42, 241-261.
17.
CuriniL.JouW.MemoliV. (2015). Why policy representation matters: The consequences of ideological congruence between citizens and their governments. London, England: Routledge.
18.
DahlbergS.HolmbergS. (2014). Democracy and bureaucracy: How their quality matters for popular satisfaction. West European Politics, 37, 515-537.
19.
DaltonR. J. (1994). Communists and democrats: Democratic attitudes in the two Germanies. British Journal of Political Science, 24, 469-493.
20.
de VriesC.ArnoldC. (2011). Making the polity: Exploring the linkage between European citizens’ and political elites’ preference for European Union public policy. In FuchsD.KlingemannH.-D. (Eds.), Cultural diversity, European identity and the legitimacy of the EU (pp. 201-219). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
21.
de VriesC. E.GigerN. (2014). Holding governments accountable? Individual heterogeneity in performance voting. European Journal of Political Research, 53, 345-362.
22.
DöringH.ManowP. (2015). Parliaments and governments database (ParlGov): Information on parties, elections, and cabinets in modern democracies (Development version). Available at http://www.parlgov.org/.
23.
EzrowL.XezonakisG. (2011). Citizen satisfaction with democracy and parties’ policy offerings. Comparative Political Studies, 44, 1152-1178.
24.
GayC. (2002). Spirals of trust? The effect of descriptive representation on the relationship between citizens and their government. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 717-732.
25.
GolderM.LloydG. (2014). Re-evaluating the relationship between electoral rules and ideological congruence. European Journal of Political Research, 53, 200-212.
26.
GolderM.StramskiJ. (2010). Ideological congruence and electoral institutions. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 90-106.
27.
GomezB. T.WilsonJ. M. (2001). Political sophistication and economic voting in the American electorate: A theory of heterogeneous attribution. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 899-914.
28.
GomezB. T.WilsonJ. M. (2006). Cognitive heterogeneity and economic voting: A comparative analysis of four democratic electorates. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 127-145.
29.
GriffinJ. D.NewmanB. (2008). Minority report: Evaluating political equality in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
30.
HajnalZ.TrounstineJ. (2014). Identifying and understanding perceived inequities in local politics. Political Research Quarterly, 67, 56-70.
31.
HakhverdianA. (2010). Political representation and its mechanisms: A dynamic left–right approach for the United Kingdom, 1976–2006. British Journal of Political Science, 40, 835-856.
32.
HakhverdianA.MayneQ. (2012). Institutional trust, education, and corruption: A micro-macro interactive approach. Journal of Politics, 74, 739-750.
33.
HibbingJ. R.Theiss-MorseE. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
HuberJ. D.PowellG. B. (1994). Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of liberal democracy. World Politics, 46, 291-326.
35.
HymanH. H.WrightC. R. (1979). Education’s lasting influence on values. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
36.
KarpJ. A.BanducciS. A. (2008). When politics is not just a man’s game: Women’s representation and political engagement. Electoral Studies, 27, 105-115.
37.
KimH.FordingR. C. (1998). Voter ideology in western democracies, 1946–1989. European Journal of Political Research, 33, 73-97.
38.
KimM. (2009). Cross-national analyses of satisfaction with democracy and ideological congruence. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 19, 49-72.
39.
KinderD. R.KiewietD. R. (1981). Sociotropic politics: The American case. British Journal of Political Science, 11, 129-161.
40.
KlingemannH.-D.VolkensA.BaraJ.BudgeI. (2006). Mapping policy preferences II: Estimates for parties, electors, and governments in Eastern Europe, European Union and OECD 1990-2003. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
41.
KornbergA.ClarkeH. D. (1992). Citizens and community: Political support in a representative democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42.
KramerG. H. (1983). The ecological fallacy revisited: Aggregate- versus individual-level findings on economics and elections, and sociotropic voting. The American Political Science Review, 77, 92-111.
43.
KuechlerM. (1991). The dynamics of mass political support in Western Europe: Methodological problems and preliminary findings. In ReifK.InglehartR. (Eds.), Eurobarometer: The dynamics of European public opinion (pp. 275-293). London, England: Macmillan.
44.
LawlessJ. L. (2004). Politics of presence? Congresswomen and symbolic representation. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 81-99.
45.
LeckieG.CharltonC. (2013). runmlwin: A program to run the MLwiN multilevel modelling software from within Stata. Journal of Statistical Software, 52, 1-40.
46.
LijphartA. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
47.
MarschallM. J.RuhilA. V. S. (2007). Substantive symbols: The attitudinal dimension of Black political incorporation in local government. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 17-33.
48.
McCloskyH.ZallerJ. R. (1984). The American ethos: Public attitudes toward capitalism and democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49.
McDonaldM. D.BudgeI. (2005). Elections, parties, democracy: Conferring the median mandate. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
50.
McDonaldM. D.MendesS. M.BudgeI. (2004). What are elections for? Conferring the median mandate. British Journal of Political Science, 34, 1-26.
51.
MoehlerD. (2009). Critical citizens and submissive subjects: Election losers and winners in Africa. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 345-366.
52.
NieN. H.JunnJ.Stehlik-BarryK. (1996). Education and democratic citizenship in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
53.
PantojaA. D.SeguraG. M. (2003). Does ethnicity matter? Descriptive representation in legislatures and political alienation among Latinos. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 441-460.
54.
PowellG. B. (2000). Elections as instruments of democracy: Majoritarian and proportional visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
55.
PowellG. B. (2009). The ideological congruence controversy: The impact of alternative conceptualizations and data on the effects of election rules. Comparative Political Studies, 42, 1475-1497.
56.
PowellG. B. (2013). Representation in context: Election laws and ideological congruence between citizens and governments. Perspectives on Politics, 11, 9-21.
57.
ReherS. (2015). Explaining cross-national variation in the relationship between priority congruence and satisfaction with democracy. European Journal of Political Research, 54, 160-181.
58.
RohrschneiderR.WhitefieldS. (2007). Representation in new democracies: Party stances on European integration in post-communist Eastern Europe. Journal of Politics, 69, 1133-1146.
59.
SablA. (2015). The two cultures of democratic theory: Responsiveness, democratic quality, and the empirical-normative divide. Perspectives on Politics, 13, 345-365.
60.
SinghS. P. (2014). Not all election winners are equal: Satisfaction with democracy and the nature of the vote. European Journal of Political Research, 53, 308-327.
61.
SinghS. P.KarakoçE.BlaisA. (2012). Differentiating winners: How elections affect satisfaction with democracy. Electoral Studies, 31, 201-211.
62.
SinghS. P.LagoI.BlaisA. (2011). Winning and competitiveness as determinants of political support. Social Science Quarterly, 92, 695-709.
63.
SnijdersT. A. B.BoskerR. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London, England: SAGE.
64.
SorokaS. N.WlezienC. (2010). Degrees of democracy: Politics, public opinion, and policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
65.
SteenbergenM. R.JonesB. S. (2002). Modeling multilevel data structures. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 218-237.
66.
StimsonJ. A.MackuenM. B.EriksonR. S. (1995). Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review, 89, 543-565.
67.
UlbigS. G. (2007). Gendering municipal government: Female descriptive representation and feelings of political trust. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 1106-1123.
68.
VogtW. P. (1997). Tolerance and education: Learning to live with diversity and difference. London, England: SAGE.
69.
WarwickP.ZakharovaM. (2013). Measuring the median: The risks of inferring beliefs from votes. British Journal of Political Science, 43, 157-175.
70.
WeissbergR. (1978). Collective vs. dyadic representation in congress. American Political Science Review, 72, 535-547.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
